In my posting on Thursday, October 8, I suggested that the White House's decision to go to war with FOX News was a bad idea for the White House, but a good break for FOX. Since then things have heated up, and FOX's ratings continue to skyrocket.
In the latest volley, White House communications director Anita Dunn admitted that the two parties were at war, and that it was no longer necessary to pretend that FOX behaves like a "legitimate news organization". FOX was described by the White House as an "opponent", and will be treated by the White House as such.
This paranoia is silly and unbecoming. As I noted in earlier postings, objective studies have shown the clear media bias for Obama in the last election. The negative stuff that McCain and Palin had to put up from CNN and others led McCain, who is by everyone's accounts a fair and honourable man, to refuse at one point to appear on CNN. So this whining about FOX is ridiculous. It is a cable news network, not the Republican party. Does the White House have to be loved by everybody? Isn't the Nobel Committee's vote of confidence enough?
I also referred in my postings to viewership figures. The most recent ones I looked at were astounding. For example, Glenn Beck's viewership for the week of October 2 - 8 at the 5 p.m. time slot ranged from app 2,550,00 to 2,950,000 per day. This was about TWICE as much as the viewership of CNN Situation Room, MSNBC Hardball, and Headline News COMBINED. O'Reilly's numbers are also astronomic. For most days at the 8 pm time slot, they are well over 3,000,000 and as high as 3,765,000. No-one else comes even close (Campbell Brown, Countdown, and Nancy Grace) and as with Beck, O'Reilly's number dwarfs the COMBINED number of the three others.
The numbers go up as the White House rhetoric goes up. As I noted in my earlier posting, I don't subscribe to FOX. But I might now. It looks like I am missing all the action in this war of words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Professor Klar,
ReplyDeleteYou don't need an objective study to tell you that FOX is not a legitimate news organization. All you need is res ipsa loquitur: just watch the thing. It's terrible.
I'm shocked that you can keep a straight face pleading agnosticism, or claiming equivalence between FOX and its competitors, particularly when FOX is so often odious and bigoted. That's no different than reading "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and requiring your opponents to prove its implausibility & racism.
You don't need a Pew study to tell you that Glenn Beck is a bigoted, slimey little Iago. He claims the President "has a deep-seated hatred for white culture"; promotes armed rebellion; and "hate[s] 9/11 victims' families".
As for the "objective studies" of media bias toward Obama, I think we've talked about this before. Let's see 'em.
I'll again plug this fascinating article from the New Yorker (a former McCain fan), on the perception among his close friends that he abandoned his principles during the campaign. Presumably, the objective studies you mention overlooked McCain's own ads, which were widely seen as adopting the low, race-baiting politics he fell victim to in the 2000 primaries. He even hired some of the advisors that slandered him in South Carolina. But the lizard king of these dirty campaigns, Karl Rove, got an even better job; he is now a prominent fixture on a popular, legitimate news channel: FOX.
Hey Scott:
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment. Unfortunately, it is not directed at anything I wrote, but perhaps a posting that you think I wrote? I made it clear that I was not defending FOX in my first posting. I did not plead "equivalence" or "agnosticism". I did not defend Beck or anything he has said. I was not talking about political ads, but media bias. If you go back to my earlier posting on this and look at the comments, you will see the reference to the studies. You also do not need "an objective study" to detect media bias in the election.. res ipsa loquitur.
So let us recap. I made two points. First it is counter productive for the White House to make FOX news its political "opponent". It elevates FOX news. It boosts its ratings. Second FOX is killing the opposition, and the White House obviously does not want to reach its millions of viewers. Any comment on what I did actually post would be welcomed.
Rush Limbaugh's ratings are higher than ever. This is very contrary to what people were predicting for him (and for Fox) when Bush left office.
ReplyDeleteLewis,
ReplyDeleteWhen you're writing about words, you should use them accurately and logically. I can't find any statement by Anita Dunn that the White House has decided to "go to war", or is "at war" with FOX -- only that FOX is at war with the White House, and will be treated as an opponent.
You may consider even that to be thin-skinned and counter-productive (I don't), but "paranoia" surely is a hyperbolic description, more appropriate to some of the jumped-up media commentators than to one of your sobriety.
I don't get your suggestion that John McCain's refusal to be interviewed by CNN means that Obama should be more friendly with FOX. Perhaps I misunderstood; otherwise, that makes no sense. How does McCain's honourability make the difference?
Ron
Ron
Hi Ron:
ReplyDeleteI think we also have to read comments in context. The White House has called FOX an "opponent", has described its behaviour as not being that of a "legitimate" news organization, and Obama refused to appear on FOX when he made his Sunday blitz. I think you are nit picking here, by saying that since they did not declare war on FOX they are not viewing FOX as an enemy combatant to be dealt with. It was a metaphor, which I am sure the WH would even agree with.
I think the ratings prove it is counter-productive. For FOX this is all about commercial success and getting your message out. The White House has clearly helped them do that. If you were an advertiser would you prefer your pitch to go out to 3,000,000 viewers or 500,000?
My suggestion re McCain was that he saw the unfair CNN treatment of Sarah Palin as so excessive, that he felt he could not in all good conscience appear on CNN. It was not a reference to what Obama should do about connecting with the millions of Americans who watch FOX. He has written them off. I think it is bad politics on his part and furthers the divide in American society.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteMis=attributing a declaration of war is a pretty big nit.
Apparently, you believe McCain's actions were justified because the CNN was biased, but you don't extend the same rationale to Obama vis-a-vis FOX.
Yes, FOX programs are drawing big audiences. But is Obama lacking coverage, in the media as a whole, and not adequately reaching the audience he could hope to persuade? I don't think so.
Ron
Hi Ron:
ReplyDeleteIt was a METAPHOR. No-one actually believes that there is a real down to earth shooting "war" going on.
You might be interested in the following blog by John Batchelor. It is entitled "The White House's war on Fox shows its ignorance of the network's true business: show business.." The author I guess is also "mis-attributing a declaration of war". It is found in http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-14.
It's not a metaphor when you use the word with quotation marks - as you do in the post's headline for Pete's sakes.
ReplyDeleteLewis,
ReplyDeleteNo need to shout. I'm fine with metaphors. But there's a difference between using a metaphor yourself, as John batchelor did and, in your case, mis-attributing the (sensationalistic) metaphor to Anita Dunn, who did not use it to describe WH atitude toward CNN.
Ron
looks like there could be a 'war' going on between commentators on this blog.
ReplyDeleteConrad Black's take on Obama's first 9 months. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/15/conrad-black-the-obama-fiasco.aspx
ReplyDeleteHi Kabootar et al:
ReplyDeleteI find the comments to be a silly distraction from the main points of my posting. Whether it is fair to say that the White House thinks it's "at war" with FOX as opposed to FOX merely being at war with it, and FOX only being an "opponent", is neither here nor there.
It is clear that the White House has decided to take FOX on, and to try to marginalize it. The point of my posting was that this was a stupid policy politically, which only serves to help FOX, as it evident from the ratings - FOX is kicking the stuffing out of its competitors, pure and simple.
By the way, yet another commentator who states that Anita Dunn "was on national television essentially declaring a message war" on FOX is Chuck Raasch from USA TODAY. Raascch makes three points: first, "attacks on FOX are de facto attacks on the people who watch it". Bad politics says Raasch. Second, the attacks on "whole segments of the popoulation belies Obama's promise of bringing people together". Third, it is not "presidential". "if you want to get in the mud with Glenn Beck, do it on your own dime and time, not ours". Amen, I say.
It would be nice if my commentators focused on these points, rather than on whether a word in quotation marks can be a metaphor. Good grief.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteWH has characterized FOX as part of its political opposition.
But how has WH attacked FOX, and thereby, de facto, attacked the people who watch it?
(Pardon me for previously focussing on what you said, rather than what you had not yet said.)
Ron
Ron
Hi Ron:
ReplyDeleteOne example. The White House has said that FOX NEWS' behaviour is not that of a "legitimate news organization" and hence it will not be treated as such. To illustrate its contempt, the President's Sunday "blitz" of, I think 5 stations, excluded FOX. You would not consider this an attack on FOX's coverage, the professionalism of its reporters, and its viewers? I would, and FOX does.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Do you agree with the WH characterization of FOX?
Hypothetically, if you did agree, would you consider its exclusion of FOX to be justified?
Would you consider its exclusion to be good politics?
Ron
Hi Ron:
ReplyDeleteYou raise a whole different set of issues. As I stated before I do not watch much of cable news, whether it be CNN, Headline News, MSNBC, or FOX (I don't even usually get to watch FOX), so I am not in a position to judge which are "legitimate" "illegitimate" or even what the White House means by its characterization.
Having said that I repeat what I said before. Writing off FOX and its viewership is bad politics and just serves to help FOX. I agree with Chuck Raasch's points which I referenced above.
One reason why Obama would be wise to court Fox viewers, rather than marginalize them, is because the majority of the independents who supported him in his 2008 victory are much more conservative than they are liberal. (These independents are, for the most part, disillusioned Bush supporters.) We already know that Obama has begun to lose independents' support. By marginalizing Fox News, Obama will be increasingly criticized by their anchors and this could further destroy his support among the conservative independents who helped him win.
ReplyDeleteA) Love the bit about McCain. I completely agree with you. Thank G-d he wasn't elected! One can only imagine what kind of 'war' he would've engaged in with CNN. Its ratings would be through the roof by now!
ReplyDeleteB) Fox started this because its good for ratings. The WH may be criticized for trying to fight back. You can't win when fighting with the media. Duh!
C) Fox isn't news. I mean, it's barely even satire.
Peace Out
The NY Times this weekend confirms the "war" rhetoric that the WH initiated:
ReplyDelete“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, said in an interview with The New York Times. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html?ref=weekinreview
And then, at the end of the day, perhaps it all comes down to "war" is in the eye of the beholder . . . or in this case, the listener of the beholder.
ReplyDelete